The Spark EV battery's energy density is 90 Wh/kg (versus 137 Wh/kg in the Bolt EV's battery). Would you be willing to give up 33% of your battery capacity (range) so that you can charge at 2.5 to 3 C? Essentially, a 160 mile car?

Also, I believe that would result in a more expensive battery, despite the lower energy capacity.

Registered

And again, trade offs. Larger, more expensive batteries are the only reason Tesla vehicles were able to achieve the charging rates they were able to achieve, and even at the time of the Bolt EV's release, they really weren't pushing that much more power in terms of C rating. Maybe 1.5 C?

A good example of this is that a 40 kWh Tesla battery in a Toyota RAV4 EV more than doubled it's cost over a base RAV4. A 60 kWh battery would have driven that cost even higher. In 2016 to 2017, a Bolt EV using a 60 kWh battery composed of 18650 cells would have easily added $10,000 to the price.

To me, the best middle ground that I could see would be a 50 kWh battery using similar cells and chemistry to the Volt, though packaging would be difficult. A Bolt EV with that configuration would be able to charge at 100 to 150 kW (whenever those chargers become widely available); however, even that would likely add several thousand to the cost. I can't imagine how GM could have gotten that configuration of a Bolt EV under a base MSRP of $40,000.

Registered

And again, trade offs. Larger, more expensive batteries are the only reason Tesla vehicles were able to achieve the charging rates they were able to achieve, and even at the time of the Bolt EV's release, they really weren't pushing that much more power in terms of C rating. Maybe 1.5 C?

A good example of this is that a 40 kWh Tesla battery in a Toyota RAV4 EV more than doubled it's cost over a base RAV4. A 60 kWh battery would have driven that cost even higher. In 2016 to 2017, a Bolt EV using a 60 kWh battery composed of 18650 cells would have easily added $10,000 to the price.

To me, the best middle ground that I could see would be a 50 kWh battery using similar cells and chemistry to the Volt, though packaging would be difficult. A Bolt EV with that configuration would be able to charge at 100 to 150 kW (whenever those chargers become widely available); however, even that would likely add several thousand to the cost. I can't imagine how GM could have gotten that configuration of a Bolt EV under a base MSRP of $40,000.

Maybe I don't understand your question but as Dave04Bolt mentioned, the Model 3 batteries were around 2 years ago and the 18650 cell chemistry and energy density isn't much different. That's been around since 2012. Wouldn't the S60 or even the S40 battery pack from 6 years ago have met your criteria. Throw that in a Sonic.

Registered

The Spark EV battery's energy density is 90 Wh/kg (versus 137 Wh/kg in the Bolt EV's battery). Would you be willing to give up 33% of your battery capacity (range) so that you can charge at 2.5 to 3 C? Essentially, a 160 mile car?

Registered

Maybe I don't understand your question but as Dave04Bolt mentioned, the Model 3 batteries were around 2 years ago and the 18650 cell chemistry and energy density isn't much different. That's been around since 2012. Wouldn't the S60 or even the S40 battery pack from 6 years ago have met your criteria. Throw that in a Sonic.

Maybe you didn't. Again, it's cost. Considering Tesla is just no able to sell a version of the Model 3 for under $40,000, nearly two and a half years after the Bolt EV's release, the 2170 cells might not have been that cheap in 2016.

And the point of bringing up the Toyota RAV4 EV was that it basically had the Model S40 battery pack, and that pack plus a 115 kW motor system doubled the RAV4's MSRP from $25,000 to nearly $50,000.

Registered

Why is that odd? The graph uses EPA range as a means of demonstrating the Model 3's superiority, yet the two vehicles are achieving a similar SOC with a similar time frame (despite the Audi e-Tron's battery being larger).

No. One of the secrets to Tesla's success so far is that they have had no direct competitors. No other large, long-range EV sedans. No other mid-size, long-range EV SUVs. No other mid-size, long-range EV sedans.

The Model Y will be entering a market where it will have significantly more competition by the time of its release. On the budget end, it's competing against the likes of the Kia Niro EV. On the high end, it's competing against the likes of the Jaguar I-PACE.

Registered

The Model Y will be entering a market where it will have significantly more competition by the time of its release. On the budget end, it's competing against the likes of the Kia Niro EV. On the high end, it's competing against the likes of the Jaguar I-PACE.

Why is that odd? The graph uses EPA range as a means of demonstrating the Model 3's superiority, yet the two vehicles are achieving a similar SOC with a similar time frame (despite the Audi e-Tron's battery being larger).

Because you implied e-Tron charges better/fast/more by saying "Now imagine if the Model 3 could charge like the Aude e-Tron."
You have a confusing/misdirecting way of explaining things. Being vague with 'similar SOC' and 'similar time' is also curious.

Registered

Why is that odd? The graph uses EPA range as a means of demonstrating the Model 3's superiority, yet the two vehicles are achieving a similar SOC with a similar time frame (despite the Audi e-Tron's battery being larger).

It will be worse than the Model 3 unless the Model Y's battery is also 10% larger (though it sounds like it will not be, which is why Elon stated that it will have less range).

No. One of the secrets to Tesla's success so far is that they have had no direct competitors. No other large, long-range EV sedans. No other mid-size, long-range EV SUVs. No other mid-size, long-range EV sedans.

The Model Y will be entering a market where it will have significantly more competition by the time of its release. On the budget end, it's competing against the likes of the Kia Niro EV. On the high end, it's competing against the likes of the Jaguar I-PACE.

How is it that the e-Tron battery is bigger when @ 80%, the model 3 has 260 miles of range but the Audi only has 175? In the same length of time, the model 3 adds 85 more miles than the Audi, yet you find the Audi superior. Now things are starting to make sense with all your comical postings.

And why do you think the only competition to the model 3 can only come from an EV? Have seen the shellacking the German cars have been taking since model 3’s been out. Tesla has plenty of competition just none that can actually compete. Is it just a cognitive dissonance that isolates you from reality?

We’ll see if you pull yet another swing and a miss with this prediction as you did for most of 2018. Stay tuned and see if the Bolt will score a knockout punch to the young challenger as the bolt continues the current sales explosion you predicted once the FedCred countdown starts.

I gave two examples on either end of the price spectrum. I could have also added the Bolt EV, Kona Electric, Soul EV, Q4 e-Tron, LEAF (sort of), etc., etc., etc. The point is that the Model Y will have much more competition in its segment than any other Tesla that preceded it. It might still sell extremely well, but we're finally getting to a point where we will be seeing competition between EVs.

Because you implied e-Tron charges better/fast/more by saying "Now imagine if the Model 3 could charge like the Aude e-Tron."
You have a confusing/misdirecting way of explaining things. Being vague with 'similar SOC' and 'similar time' is also curious.

Maybe I'm simply mistaken in assuming that you are familiar with the e-Tron's charging profile, which is, in my opinion, superior to the Tesla charging profile. While the e-Tron's charge rate does not spike at the beginning of the charge session like the Model 3, it maintains a fairly constant ~150 kW charging rate from 0% to ~85% before tapering down. Essentially, any time in that spectrum of the battery's charge cycle, you will see your full charging rate. I feel that that creates a better customer experience and, as your chart illustrated, actually provides a faster overall charge than spiking to hit the highest peak rate possible and then rapidly tapering the charge rate.

Also, in terms of vague language, I'm speaking directly to the graph you posted. Again, I was simply assuming you were familiar with the content you posted.

Probably because it's so new, and prospective buyers are being directed away from it by a very vocal segment of the EV owner population. Regardless, if you compare the first five months of sales between the I-PACE and Model 3, the I-PACE doesn't look so bad. Especially when you consider that two of the I-PACE's first months are traditionally the worst EV sales months out of the year (taken from Insideevs's Scorecard):

Attachments

Registered

How is it that the e-Tron battery is bigger when @ 80%, the model 3 has 260 miles of range but the Audi only has 175? In the same length of time, the model 3 adds 85 more miles than the Audi, yet you find the Audi superior. Now things are starting to make sense with all your comical postings.

And why do you think the only competition to the model 3 can only come from an EV? Have seen the shellacking the German cars have been taking since model 3’s been out. Tesla has plenty of competition just none that can actually compete. Is it just a cognitive dissonance that isolates you from reality?

We’ll see if you pull yet another swing and a miss with this prediction as you did for most of 2018. Stay tuned and see if the Bolt will score a knockout punch to the young challenger as the bolt continues the current sales explosion you predicted once the FedCred countdown starts.

The e-Tron's charging profile can be superior to the Model 3's charging profile while, at the same time, the Model 3 can be more efficient than the e-Tron. All I was saying is, imagine if a vehicle had the strengths of both?

Registered

The e-Tron's charging profile can be superior to the Model 3's charging profile while, at the same time, the Model 3 can be more efficient than the e-Tron. All I was saying is, imagine if a vehicle had the strengths of both?

I’m confused. Explain how one car with a smaller battery adds 50% more miles of range than the other one in the length of time and the less range added model has a superior charging profile. Is the graph wrong? It would have to be.

Registered

I’m confused. Explain how one car with a smaller battery adds 50% more miles of range than the other one in the length of time and the less range added model has a superior charging profile. Is the graph wrong? It would have to be.

Sure, if you want to call it wrong, and as proof of which charging profile is superior, I would agree -- it is wrong. Primarily because it includes efficiency in the calculation while comparing a midsize sedan to a standard size SUV.

In this case, it is more appropriate to compare actual kWh added. The Audi e-Tron apparently has close to 85 kWh of usable capacity, while the Model 3 has something close to 75 kWh. So if the e-Tron is reaching 80% and 90% battery in the same amount of time as the Model 3 despite having a peak charging rate that is nearly 100 kW lower, that should be something to consider.

Essentially, if the Audi e-Tron's charging speed and profile was in any vehicle with even close to the Model 3's efficiency, it would add more miles in 30 minutes despite having a far lower peak charging rate. Do you see why that's beneficial?

Registered

Sure, if you want to call it wrong, and as proof of which charging profile is superior, I would agree -- it is wrong. Primarily because it includes efficiency in the calculation while comparing a midsize sedan to a standard size SUV.

In this case, it is more appropriate to compare actual kWh added. The Audi e-Tron apparently has close to 85 kWh of usable capacity, while the Model 3 has something close to 75 kWh. So if the e-Tron is reaching 80% and 90% battery in the same amount of time as the Model 3 despite having a peak charging rate that is nearly 100 kW lower, that should be something to consider.

Essentially, if the Audi e-Tron's charging speed and profile was in any vehicle with even close to the Model 3's efficiency, it would add more miles in 30 minutes despite having a far lower peak charging rate. Do you see why that's beneficial?

I suppose if I always charged to 80%, having a car that can maintain close to it’s peak rate for that entire time could be beneficial except in those cases where the peak rate is substantially less than the competition. I mean the bolt can charge at it’s peak till 50% but at 55 kW, is that really a bragging point.
I rarely charge beyond 50% for a number of reasons.
My destination is less than 150 miles from the supercharger.
The next supercharger is less than 150 miles.
So in my case I’d prefer a rate curve that if averaging 155 kW is the target, max out what the battery can handle for the first 50% then taper to maintain battery health since the only times I charge beyond 50% are overnight at home on TOU. So in my case a flight line rate curve in not beneficial.

Registered

I suppose if I always charged to 80%, having a car that can maintain close to it’s peak rate for that entire time could be beneficial except in those cases where the peak rate is substantially less than the competition. I mean the bolt can charge at it’s peak till 50% but at 55 kW, is that really a bragging point.
I rarely charge beyond 50% for a number of reasons.
My destination is less than 150 miles from the supercharger.
The next supercharger is less than 150 miles.
So in my case I’d prefer a rate curve that if averaging 155 kW is the target, max out what the battery can handle for the first 50% then taper to maintain battery health since the only times I charge beyond 50% are overnight at home on TOU. So in my case a flight line rate curve in not beneficial.

What if you were traveling, wanted to stop to use the bathroom, grab a snack, get a drink, etc., but you were at 50% to 60% battery? In the e-Tron's configuration, your vehicle would add just as much energy as it would if you purposefully postponed your stop for another hour or two just to get down to 10% battery.

In other words, if your 500-mile trip required 30 minutes of charging to complete, you are much more limited with the Model 3's charging curve. With the Model 3's charging curve, you need to plan your charging stops around arriving at a 10% to 20% battery in order to achieve that 30 minutes of total charging time. With the e-Tron's charging curve, you can chose to stop for 30 minutes at almost any point along that trip that makes sense to you without any sort of penalty.

Make two 15-minute stops or three 10-minute stops? Sure, pretty much at any point you want to.

Drive down to 5% and make a single 30-minute stop? That works.

Stop just an hour into the trip for a quick bathroom/coffee stop? That works too.

So right now, we are still in the innovator stage for EVs as far as the Diffusion of Innovation curve is concerned. In order to push into Early Adopter phase, we really need to stop requiring people to make concessions on behalf of the vehicle or technology. While it's okay for EVs to have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we need to get to a point where consumers do not need to significantly adjust their behaviors or preferences just to suit the requirements of the vehicles. Right now, most of the Tesla owners I know who take long trips fall into one of two groups: They either already liked to travel by making numerous short stops at specific predetermined intervals, or they adjusted their behavior and now find it an acceptable way to travel. Many customers won't be as tolerant as the latter group.

V1 supercharger was launched at the time when Model S only existed in the N.America version, with a 40A/10kW charger.
|

12 V1 modules = 120kW output shared between two stalls, but initial V1 superchargers were limited to 90kW max on one stall even if the other stall was idle. Later, this limit was removed (apparently a software change in the superchargers themselves as well as the cars, as it didn't roll out instantly) and a single car could draw the full 120kW.
|

V2 supercharger was launched around the time of the introduction of the EU-version Model S, which had a 16A 3-phase charger module (approx 12kW per module).
|

12 V2 modules = 145kW total power, but limited to 120kW with a single car even if the other stall is idle.
|

It now appears that they will drop the 120kW limit, just like they dropped the 90kW limit on the V1 supercharges.
|

Note when comparing powers that AC charging is normally quoted as the input power (without deducting charger efficiency), while DC charging is normally quoted as the output power (after charger efficiency). However, Superchargers run the modules on 277V (vs. 240V normally, 15% more), hence a given module gives about the same output power used in a supercharger as it has input power when used in the car.

Go to page

Just a plug to search for an event in your area and register to attend, Drive Electric week is only one week away
https://driveelectricweek.org/index.php
https://driveelectricweek.org/events.php#search-event
"National Drive Electric Week, September 14-22, 2019, is a nationwide celebration to...

I guess 20k points equal to a $100 gift certificate for buying accessories at the dealer... the only things that looks even slightly interesting is the $140 All Weather Floor Mat set and the $174 installed trailer hitch. What do you think?
From what I am reading, if I get the credit card, I...

GM's all electric pickup will reportedly debut in 2022, around the same time Ford will unveil its e-pickup.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-electric-pickups-focus/ford-gm-rev-up-electric-pickup-trucks-to-head-off-tesla-idUSKCN1VY0YE

Once VW ushers the ID 3 1st Edition into the world, the regular production model will offer a 45-kWh battery that provides an estimated 205 miles of range and an even larger 77-kWh battery with an estimated 342 miles of range on tap...